Naperville council gives new life to controversial development

Downtown Water Street proposal returns to docket Jan. 15

December 22, 2012|By Melissa Jenco, Chicago Tribune reporter

The Water Street development, shown here as proposed this summer, included a hotel, apartment, shops, restaurants and office space in downtown Naperville. Developers continue to tweak the plans and most recently lowered the height of the hotel and eliminated the apartments. (Marquette Companies, Handout)

The Naperville City Council has thrown a life raft to the controversial Water Street development in downtown Naperville.

Councilmen changed their minds about sending the project back to advisory boards following a plea from developers who said the delay could sink their plans.

Following a vote Dec. 18, they agreed to take up the controversial issue again on Jan. 15 rather than send it back to committees for more study.

"We're working very diligently with our team to address the concerns that were raised relative to height, traffic, parking and density and we believe that what we'll put forward will be widely accepted by you and it's going to be a great project," said Nick Ryan, managing partner of developer Marquette Companies.

The development is targeted for a 2.4-acre site bounded by Aurora Avenue on the south, the DuPage River on the north, Main Street on the east and Webster Street on the west. The proposal calls for the construction of a hotel, parking garage, restaurants, shops and offices. Until recently, it also included apartments.

The City Council gave preliminary approval to a smaller version of the plan in 2007, but the work never got off the ground.

Marquette Companies revived the plans this summer, spurring dozens of residents to speak out both for and against the project at public meetings.

Councilmen have remained divided on its merits and have spent hours discussing it.

Earlier this month, the council narrowly voted to send the project back to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as to the Transportation Advisory Board for more study and input.

While Councilman Bob Fieseler was among those voting in favor of doing so, he led the push Tuesday to reconsider, saying he believes the developer is ready to present a final plan.

"The petitioner must understand, does understand, that what it presents in January … it better be right and it better be definitive because the reconsideration doesn't necessarily mean approval," he said.

Councilwoman Judy Brodhead said her earlier vote to return the project to advisory groups was "buying some time," and she too changed her mind and agreed to keep the project at the council level.

Councilman Grant Wehrli continued to oppose that approach for a project he said has "potential to be a game changer."

"We're coming up with a special process to facilitate the developer while I would say turning our back on the residents in the sense they really won't get the chance to weigh in on it other than to come to a council meeting," he said.

Others pointed out various iterations of the project have gone through the Planning and Zoning Commission four times since 2007.

"It is vetted," Councilman Kenn Miller said. "The public has spoken loud and clear about some issues, and the council has as well, so the developer has made changes to accommodate that over the last couple months."

Councilman Doug Krause, who wanted the project sent back to advisory groups, suggested the developer at least hold an open house to give the public more time to ask questions and weigh in.

Councilmen voted 6-3 in favor of keeping the project at the council level.